Political So now what

[Stephen]

We've debated term limited on elected officials before, and I still stand by what I said then:

The Presidency is the only national office with a term limit, and thats because one man, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ran and won four times. When the GOP retook Congress in '50, they passed the 22nd Amendment implementing the two term limit.
Was it FDR taking advantage of the system? Yes, but it was the electorate that voted him in; so the onus is on them really. Technically speaking, we the people have the opportunity to impose a term or age limits on elected officials every two, four, and six years. It's mostly our fault for just punching the button for the guy/gal with an R or D next to their name regardless of their time in office, age, or mental acuity. While term or age limits might solve part of the problem, the real problem is lack of education and awareness among the voting public.

Term limits for Justices would politicize SCOTUS like never before. While the Justices themselves may not be elected, they'd essentially be in the ballot with the president. Presumably each seat would be on a staggered 18 year term (as proposed by Biden/Harris). That means each presidential term would include one appointment to SCOTUS.

As mentioned before, the reason the Founders established life time appointments was the presumption that anyone nominated by the President would have been someone who had worked their was through the legal system, been a judge, and thus established a reputation as a fair legal mind. So when it came to confirmation, the Senate could look at their body of legal work and make a decision easily based solely on that. Once they were on the court, they then could continue their legal work without the worry of having to run for election and not be subject to the political tides the way elected officials are.

Traditionally SCOTUS appointments were not a big deal. It was almost always a low key affair and the nominee got bipartisan support. It really wasn't until Reagan nominated Robert Bork in 1987 and one Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat from Delaware and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, decided to make the confirmation hearing a circus to boost his status during the 1988 Presidential Campaign. Thats really the point that SCOTUS nominations became turbocharged political theater.

 

[Stephen]

Ethical reform especially in regards to conflict of interest (or appearance of it) is absolutely needed.

No justice should be hearing cases involving a friend or their business, especially a 'friend ' who gives you expensive gifts or travel.

Justices are required to recuse themselves when this kind of conflict does come up. It is part of their current code of ethics. Can you provide some examples when they have not? I'm not aware of any.

And same goes for cases a spouse is involved with politically.

Again, I'd love to see some examples where this has been a conflict of interest in a specific case before SCOTUS. Also, are you suggesting that spouses of justices should just sit at home and knit? That they are not allowed to pursue their own private lives and interests?

 

[Pike2350]

We've debated term limited on elected officials before, and I still stand by what I said then:

Term limits for Justices would politicize SCOTUS like never before. While the Justices themselves may not be elected, they'd essentially be in the ballot with the president. Presumably each seat would be on a staggered 18 year term (as proposed by Biden/Harris). That means each presidential term would include one appointment to SCOTUS.

As mentioned before, the reason the Founders established life time appointments was the presumption that anyone nominated by the President would have been someone who had worked their was through the legal system, been a judge, and thus established a reputation as a fair legal mind. So when it came to confirmation, the Senate could look at their body of legal work and make a decision easily based solely on that. Once they were on the court, they then could continue their legal work without the worry of having to run for election and not be subject to the political tides the way elected officials are.

Traditionally SCOTUS appointments were not a big deal. It was almost always a low key affair and the nominee got bipartisan support. It really wasn't until Reagan nominated Robert Bork in 1987 and one Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat from Delaware and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, decided to make the confirmation hearing a circus to boost his status during the 1988 Presidential Campaign. Thats really the point that SCOTUS nominations became turbocharged political theater.

This may have been how it was...but it is no longer how it IS. The beauty of the Constitution and our government is it can and should evolve to be more in line with the times.

SCOTUS has become a political hot button...hell almost everyone that voted for Trump loved that he appointed(yes I know they still have to be confirmed by Legislative branch) 3 conservative justices. This isn't a one sided issue. Judges no longer are put up based on their "impartiality and fairness" and it is really about their political leanings and as long as they have the right letter behind their name (or any other prereq a president feels is apprpriate) Due to this I feel it has become high time to not only get a very strict code of ethics for SCOTUS but also implement term limits. No one president should be able to appoint almost half the court in their term. By staggering them, while the politics may be there, there would only be 1 seat per presidential term coming due unless there was tragedy by a death or possibly if the president won 2 terms.

I get that they shouldn't be afraid for reelection and should make rulings on fairness....but honestly I feel this lack of fear has emboldened president's and Justices a like. There is little to no recourse. This, to me follows the same logic that, being elected to Congress was never meant to be a lifetime career. It was meant to be a few terms "do good for the people" thing. It is no longer that and the term limits and other restrictions should be adjusted accordingly.

 

[anderson750]

Democrats - The constitution is a living breathing document that judicial branch can make changes to.

Republicans - The constitution is not a living breathing and the judicial branch should uphold it.

 

[Houndoc]

Justices are required to recuse themselves when this kind of conflict does come up. It is part of their current code of ethics. Can you provide some examples when they have not? I'm not aware of any.

Again, I'd love to see some examples where this has been a conflict of interest in a specific case before SCOTUS. Also, are you suggesting that spouses of justices should just sit at home and knit? That they are not allowed to pursue their own private lives and interests?

Lower courts have strict rules on recusal, the Supreme Court does not and has refused to do so.

I know you will criticize the source of the specific article I am linking to, but all these have been very widely reported on.

But in summary, Thomas and Alito have both received expensive travel from "friends" whose businesses have had cases before the Supreme Court. They have not recused themselves.

Thomas' wife is very active politically, including supporting Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results while related cases where before SCOTUS. Again Thomas did not recuse himself.

MSN

 

[Gravy]

Wasn’t the original intent so that judges don’t have to fear making a controversial decision and risk not getting re-elected (fired)? It was supposed to keep them immune from outside influence.

100% correct.
Justices have to be confirmed by the legislative. Term limit for Justices would further politicise them and errode the public confidence of their judgments. The fact that they are lifetime appointments lends finality and thoughtfulness. They rarely make snap decisions.

However, the House of Representatives and Senate NEED term limits because the have no such check placed upon them. Their autonomy eventually leads to corruption. Term limits would reinforce accountability.

 

[Kevin B.]

IMO term limits are a bandaid for an uneducated electorate. I hate bandaids.

 

[glockman]

IMO term limits are a bandaid for an uneducated electorate. I hate bandaids.

IMO term limits are throwing a freshman class to the crafty old lobbyists.

 

[Kevin B.]

IMO term limits are throwing a freshman class to the crafty old lobbyists.

Yah, and we should fix that before we talk about term limits. Trash the Citizens decision and everything related to it - money is not free speech, and corporations are not people. Reform the election system, give ALL political parties equal access, get the money out. Make it make sense.

That's a big ask, and a long haul, and it's probably not going to happen. I think it's past the tipping point, we're screwed and will be until somebody hits that big red reset button. But until the corruption and cronyism is gone, sillyness like term limits isn't anything more than a feelgood measure that won't actually accomplish anything and might make it worse.

 

[Pike2350]

Democrats - The constitution is a living breathing document that judicial branch can make changes to.

Republicans - The constitution is not a living breathing and the judicial branch should uphold it.

I don't believe either side thinks the judicial branch can make changes to the Constitution.

However I do believe it is a "living" document. It qas designed to be able to be changed and updated....not by judges however. What you are referring to is how someone interprets what is written.

I know people don't like to acknowledge this but how things are written, what words are used, as well as context play I to how someone interprets it. It isn't hard to see how there are varying views or opnions by what the Constitution says.

 

[Pike2350]

IMO term limits are throwing a freshman class to the crafty old lobbyists.

So what is your opinion? Never vote out old elected officials? At some point you will always be throwing a freshman class to lobbyists.

I am all for reform on lobbying and trying to get money out of politics but we also know it will never really happen.

The biggest problem I see with term limits is that many elected officials will try and get all they can why they can and may just lose what little integrity they started with.

Really we need to find a way to elect people with integrity, but alas, most with integrity don't want to muddy themselves with the Swamp of DC.

 

[Spork]

Maybe the Freshman class ought to hold out for more money...

 

[Kevin B.]

So what is your opinion? Never vote out old elected officials?

I think that's the point. Vote them out if they're not doing a good job, that's what elections are supposed to be for. Not this party-politics straight ticket BS we have now.

Term limits would just make sure that the few good ones can't stick around to learn their job and we'd have nothing but a revolving door of lawyers and developers who think ****-you money isn't enough and want some of that sweet sweet lobbyist love.

 

[glockman]

So what is your opinion? Never vote out old elected officials? At some point you will always be throwing a freshman class to lobbyists.

I am all for reform on lobbying and trying to get money out of politics but we also know it will never really happen.

The biggest problem I see with term limits is that many elected officials will try and get all they can why they can and may just lose what little integrity they started with.

Really we need to find a way to elect people with integrity, but alas, most with integrity don't want to muddy themselves with the Swamp of DC.

Pretty much what Kevin said. I don't think there is a fix. You have to get lobbyists out and I don't see that happening. There has never been a free system that prevents the smartest, richest and most motivated people from running everything. I think that will continue to be the case.

 

[anderson750]

 

[Gravy]

Thanks for sharing your opinions @Kevin B. And @glockman I hadn't considered the possibile negative of term limits on as it pertains to neophyte senators. Interesting take with some reasonable points.

 

[johngottfredson]

Thanks for sharing your opinions @Kevin B. And @glockman I hadn't considered the possibile negative of term limits on as it pertains to neophyte senators. Interesting take with some reasonable points.

My brain can’t process this type of dialogue. Please include more invective and hyperbole next time. Thank you.

 

[Stephen]

Lower courts have strict rules on recusal, the Supreme Court does not and has refused to do so.

SCOTUS has had an internal code of ethics for decades, and they have always policed themselves as they are an independent branch of government. Here is the most recent one:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

I know you will criticize the source of the specific article I am linking to, but all these have been very widely reported on.

But in summary, Thomas and Alito have both received expensive travel from "friends" whose businesses have had cases before the Supreme Court. They have not recused themselves.

Please list the individual cases that have been before the court where these friends of the Justices have been plaintiffs. That source does not have them. Again, I am completely unaware of any, and if there aren't any, there have been no conflicts of interest that would require recusal.

Thomas' wife is very active politically, including supporting Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results while related cases where before SCOTUS. Again Thomas did not recuse himself.

Ok... so spouses of important people are not allowed to pursue their own careers and interests. Got it. What do you have to say about Sonya Sotomayor's many gifts from the likes of David Geffen and George Soros? Or are we only supposed to be upset when its textualist justices?

______

This whole thing is outrage theater. I'm honestly bored with it. The people who are losing their minds over Clarence Thomas going fishing with Harlan Crow just wave their hand at things like Martin Ginsberg's connections to Senators are what got his wife confirmed as an appellate judge. Or despite the fact that the Justices decided 9:0 or 8:1 on about 90% of cases this term matters not because they had intense debate on four or five. The Democrats are just pissed that after decades of the court being more ideologically aligned with them, it's now more ideologically aligned with the Republicans. And because of that, we must IMMEDIATELY change everything. Pack the court! Eliminate the courts independence! Force recusal of Justices whenever they are spotted at a BBQ with a registered Republican!

Do you know what conservatives did when they realized the court's ideological leaning had gone against them? They launched a 50 year project to bolster textualist lawyers and judges. Worked tirelessly to get elected officials to support appointing people who had these credentials to the courts. And guess what, it took a LONG time, but its paying off! I mean hell, even Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed "We're all textualists now" during her confirmation hearing!

If people want changes to the court, fine. Follow the process outlined in the LAW. Pass legislation, get a Constitutional Amendment with all the hurdles that implies. Changing the way that our government works is hard for a reason. It gives us, as citizens, a chance to debate and digest what is being proposed. Trying to "govern" via executive fiat and the administrative state just leads to chaos.

 

[bobdog]

SCOTUS has had an internal code of ethics for decades, and they have always policed themselves as they are an independent branch of government. Here is the most recent one:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

Please list the individual cases that have been before the court where these friends of the Justices have been plaintiffs. That source does not have them. Again, I am completely unaware of any, and if there aren't any, there have been no conflicts of interest that would require recusal.


Ok... so spouses of important people are not allowed to pursue their own careers and interests. Got it. What do you have to say about Sonya Sotomayor's many gifts from the likes of David Geffen and George Soros? Or are we only supposed to be upset when its textualist justices?

______

This whole thing is outrage theater. I'm honestly bored with it. The people who are losing their minds over Clarence Thomas going fishing with Harlan Crow just wave their hand at things like Martin Ginsberg's connections to Senators are what got his wife confirmed as an appellate judge. Or despite the fact that the Justices decided 9:0 or 8:1 on about 90% of cases this term matters not because they had intense debate on four or five. The Democrats are just pissed that after decades of the court being more ideologically aligned with them, it's now more ideologically aligned with the Republicans. And because of that, we must IMMEDIATELY change everything. Pack the court! Eliminate the courts independence! Force recusal of Justices whenever they are spotted at a BBQ with a registered Republican!

Do you know what conservatives did when they realized the court's ideological leaning had gone against them? They launched a 50 year project to bolster textualist lawyers and judges. Worked tirelessly to get elected officials to support appointing people who had these credentials to the courts. And guess what, it took a LONG time, but its paying off! I mean hell, even Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed "We're all textualists now" during her confirmation hearing!

If people want changes to the court, fine. Follow the process outlined in the LAW. Pass legislation, get a Constitutional Amendment with all the hurdles that implies. Changing the way that our government works is hard for a reason. It gives us, as citizens, a chance to debate and digest what is being proposed. Trying to "govern" via executive fiat and the administrative state just leads to chaos.

I am amazed that any one thinks it is ok for a Justice to accept "gifts". Do you really believe the bribers. O sorry gift givers gave thousands or tens of thousands out of their true friendship and kindness. I would have a hard time accepting a gift of those values from any friend regardless of their wealth. Something is not right. They are too powerful and vital to the country to have any stink or even the appearance of stink on them. Right or left does not matter. they are paid enough. If they need more they can work elsewhere

 

[Houndoc]

SCOTUS has had an internal code of ethics for decades, and they have always policed themselves as they are an independent branch of government. Here is the most recent one:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

Please list the individual cases that have been before the court where these friends of the Justices have been plaintiffs. That source does not have them. Again, I am completely unaware of any, and if there aren't any, there have been no conflicts of interest that would require recusal.


Ok... so spouses of important people are not allowed to pursue their own careers and interests. Got it. What do you have to say about Sonya Sotomayor's many gifts from the likes of David Geffen and George Soros? Or are we only supposed to be upset when its textualist justices?

______

This whole thing is outrage theater. I'm honestly bored with it. The people who are losing their minds over Clarence Thomas going fishing with Harlan Crow just wave their hand at things like Martin Ginsberg's connections to Senators are what got his wife confirmed as an appellate judge. Or despite the fact that the Justices decided 9:0 or 8:1 on about 90% of cases this term matters not because they had intense debate on four or five. The Democrats are just pissed that after decades of the court being more ideologically aligned with them, it's now more ideologically aligned with the Republicans. And because of that, we must IMMEDIATELY change everything. Pack the court! Eliminate the courts independence! Force recusal of Justices whenever they are spotted at a BBQ with a registered Republican!

Do you know what conservatives did when they realized the court's ideological leaning had gone against them? They launched a 50 year project to bolster textualist lawyers and judges. Worked tirelessly to get elected officials to support appointing people who had these credentials to the courts. And guess what, it took a LONG time, but its paying off! I mean hell, even Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed "We're all textualists now" during her confirmation hearing!

If people want changes to the court, fine. Follow the process outlined in the LAW. Pass legislation, get a Constitutional Amendment with all the hurdles that implies. Changing the way that our government works is hard for a reason. It gives us, as citizens, a chance to debate and digest what is being proposed. Trying to "govern" via executive fiat and the administrative state just leads to chaos.

Get off your "it's OK if Liberals do it" high horse.

Obviously the proposed reforms apply across the board.

He is some cases a 30 second search reveals.

Report: Harlan Crow Has a Stake in 4 SCOTUS Cases — and Thomas Hasn’t Recused

Crow’s financial interest in the cases, as uncovered in new exclusive research, could sway Thomas’s decisions.

truthout.org

Supreme Court Did Review Case Involving Harlan Crow—Contradicting Clarence Thomas’s Claim

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by an architecture firm suing a company that was part of the Crow family real estate portfolio in 2004.

www.forbes.com